I
read an article from the National Post by Andrew Coyne. Yes I visited the National Post Site and that
in itself could be news. The article was
about whether the Harper Party’s “culture of expediency” was behind the current
crop of scandals in Ottawa.
You
can read the article here: Andrew
Coyne: Conservative government’s culture of expediency behind its
multiplying scandals
If
you want my comments to Andrew you’ll have to scroll way down the comments
list, look for the black cat.
I
found myself agreeing with Andrew’s premise that many of the Harper Party
Scandals have their roots going into the practice of forcing through
legislation that looks good to the party’s supporters but that are not well
thought out, political expediency as it were, but I took issue with his idea
that
People don’t make ethical choices in isolation.
They take their cues from those around and above them.
|
I
believe ethics is what you do when you
think no one is watching.
Andrew
is of the opinion that even if you are an honest person when you walk into the
Senate or the House of Commons that you will soon lose that honesty when you
see all the other people grabbing with both hands and not getting caught. I think he’s wrong.
Look,
I know a woman who drove 30 minutes out of her way to go back to a store
because they made a mistake and didn’t charge her for an item. She was free and clear, she wouldn’t have
been caught. So why did she do it?
She
felt it was wrong to keep something she didn’t pay for. She didn’t do anything wrong, the store made
an error, but she just didn’t feel right in not paying for it.
She
did the right thing because it was the right thing to do.
It’s
the same thing as picking up a lost wallet and handing it over to the store or
the police unopened because it’s not yours.
Acting
ethically can be a choice, but for most of us it seems to be ingrained into
us. We were taught to be honest, to act
appropriately, and to be good citizens.
We may choose to be with people of like mind when we are with our friends, but unfortunately we do not
get to choose who were work with.
Stephen
Harper is not in a position like most of us.
He has the ability to choose who he has in his inner circle and those
who he appoints to various positions including the Senate. He can check into these people to ensure they
are of high moral standing, to ensure they are ethical, but he apparently does
not.
We
have a number of Senators in Ottawa who don’t appear to live in the regions
they represent. This is a condition for
sitting in the Senate stipulated in the Constitution. If these people took the high moral road, if
they acted ethically they would have at least questioned if they were entitled
to sit in the Senate. Instead they just
sidled up to the trough and proceeded to gobble all that they could get.
If
Stephen Harper were to call me today and say “You want a Senate seat?” I’d say “Thanks,
but I can’t.” I know that I don’t meet
the requirements. Believe me, if I got
the call and I could figure out how to make myself eligible I would. Wouldn’t you? $130,000.00 to start plus the
perks would be awfully hard to turn down.
***
One
way to judge a person is by looking at the company they choose to keep. Stephen’s had a disbarred lawyer in his inner
circle that later got into trouble for lobbying the Government improperly. A Cabinet Minister who had a child with a
baby sitter while he was still married.
Another Cabinet Minister who sold out his own party to have a seat in
Harper’s Cabinet. And of course the
befuddled Senator who doesn’t know where he lives.
This
does not reek of ethics folks, it reeks of something else.
Stephen
Harper has “daylight ethics”. Or maybe
we can call it “political ethics”. He
tries to look like he’s doing the right thing when the harsh lights of public
opinion are on him and his people, but when he thinks no one is looking, well
that is an entirely different matter. He
thought that no one would notice if he clawed back danger pay from our Forces in
Afghanistan. He tried to reduce the
danger pay for others. These things were
in the works until we noticed, until we turned on the lights and said that it
was wrong… Then they went away quietly, “mistakes” they said.
Just
today Stephen Harper was asked about Pamela Wallin’s travel expenses. He said that if there are improper expenses that
they should be repaid and that when they were repaid that Ms. Wallin would be welcomed back into caucus.
That’s
not ethics.
Just
paying back ill gotten gains is not sufficient.
Theft and fraud are not the pastimes of ethical or honourable
people. If Senators are bilking the
system then they shouldn’t be in the Senate.
If MPs are bilking the system they should not be in the House. At the very least they should be fired. If it is warranted, they should be jailed.
When
Stephen Harper isn’t wrapping himself in the flag or flogging his love of
watching hockey, he claims to be a Christian.
Well he strikes me as one of those “Sunday Christians.” You know the ones, Monday through Saturday
they’ll lie and cheat and steal, or they’ll be all liquored up and chasing
skirts while their family sits at home, but on Sunday, they dress up nice and
listen to the preacher for a bit and they’re good to go for another week.
***
You
see Andrew, the problem isn’t that these people are losing their ethics when
they walk into the Senate or the House.
The problem is that they didn’t have any before they got there. Of all 105 Senators and 308 MPs, we only hear
a few bad eggs. Maybe the rest are just
smart enough to not get caught, I’d like to believe that the few do not necessarily
represent the majority.
I
believe that Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin are ethically challenged, should I
believe that all journalists are like them?
Should I believe that You are
like them?
Cheers,
BC
Good
Lord the Duffy Situation just keeps getting worse. Now it appears he was demanding a Ministerial
position so that he could have a car and driver and even more travel
allowance? I’m sure glad I didn’t
appoint this buffoon.
Unfortunately, I think Coyne is right on this situation. Especially in politics, an individual enters a well-established system, and cannot function within that system without adapting - at least partly - to its ethical model, which in this case, is indeed expediency. Must be overwhelming to try to go against the tide.
ReplyDelete